SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of hiatal hernias.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.

Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

Gastro-esophageal diagnostic workup before bariatric surgery or endoscopic treatment for obesity: position statement of the International Society of Diseases of the Esophagus.

Obesity is a chronic and multifactorial condition characterized by abnormal weight gain due to excessive adipose tissue accumulation that represents a growing worldwide challenge for public health. In addition, obese patients have an increased risk of hiatal hernia, esophageal, and gastric dysfunction, as well as gastroesophageal reflux disease, which has a prevalence over 40% in those seeking endoscopic or surgical intervention. Surgery has been demonstrated to be the most effective treatment for severe obesity in terms of long-term weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life improvements and overall mortality decrease. The recent emergence of bariatric endoscopic techniques promises less invasive, more cost-effective, and reproducible approaches to the treatment of obesity. With the endorsement of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, we started a Delphi process to develop consensus statements on the most appropriate diagnostic workup to preoperatively assess gastroesophageal function before bariatric surgical or endoscopic interventions. The Consensus Working Group comprised 11 international experts from five countries. The group consisted of gastroenterologists and surgeons with a large expertise with regard to gastroesophageal reflux disease, bariatric surgery and endoscopy, and physiology. Ten statements were selected, on the basis of the agreement level and clinical relevance, which represent an evidence and experience-based consensus of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Process for quality assessment review of societal guidelines-an editorial to accompany "multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)".

BACKGROUND: The SAGES Guidelines Committee has implemented processes for Quality Assessment of SAGES-endorsed guidelines, with the aim of improving the quality of published guidelines. METHODS: We provide details of the processes developed, using standardized tools for assessing the methodological quality of practice guidelines. As an example, we describe the application of our processes to the recent multi-societal GERD consensus guideline. RESULTS: Assessment of the multi-societal GERD consensus guideline by the iterative processes of SAGES Quality Assurance taskforce improved the quality of the final manuscript in all domains of appraisal. These processes are easily applicable to future guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Such systems will increase the confidence in SAGES recommendations and increase the implementation of SAGES guidelines. By demonstrating the rigor of Quality Assessment, this confidence also extends to a further increase in the assurance of the publications of the Surgical Endoscopy journal.

Multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

SAGES 2022 guidelines regarding the use of laparoscopy in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.

SAGES guidelines: an appraisal of their quality and value by SAGES members.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee develops evidence-based guidelines for practicing surgeons using standard methodology. Our objective was to survey the SAGES membership regarding guidelines' quality, use, and value and identify topics of interest for new guideline development. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was emailed in October 2019 to SAGES members. Respondents were asked 18 questions on their use and evaluation of SAGES guidelines and SAGES reviews and to provide suggestions for new guideline topics and areas of improvement. The survey was open for 6 weeks with a 3-week reminder. RESULTS: Of 548 responders, most were minimally invasive (41%) or general surgeons (33%). There was an even distribution between academic (46%) and non-academic practice (24% private practice, 23% hospital employed). Most used SAGES guidelines frequently (22%) or occasionally (68%) and found them to be of value (83%), above average quality (86%), and easy to use (74%). While most stated it was important (35%) or very important (58%) that SAGES continues to follow "rigorous guidelines development processes," common suggestions were for more timely updates and improved web access. Of 442 overlapping topic suggestions, 60% fell into overarching categories of hernia, bariatric, robotic, HPB, and colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES guidelines are used frequently and valued by its users for their quality and content. Topics proposed by SAGES members and valuable insight from this survey can guide creation of new guidelines and refinement of established guidelines and processes.

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines development: standard operating procedure.

INTRODUCTION: The mission of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) is to innovate, educate, and collaborate to improve patient care. A critical element in meeting this mission is the publishing of trustworthy and current guidelines for the practicing surgeon. METHODS: In this manuscript, we outline the steps of developing high quality practice guidelines using a completely volunteer-based professional organization. RESULTS: SAGES has developed a standardized approach to train volunteer surgeons and trainees alike to develop clinically pertinent guidelines in a timely manner, without sacrificing quality. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can be used more widely by volunteer organizations to efficiently develop effective tools for practicing physicians.

Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Achalasia is a rare, chronic, and morbid condition with evolving treatment. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained considerable popularity, but its comparative effectiveness is uncertain. We aim to evaluate the literature comparing POEM to Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD) for the treatment of achalasia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies between POEM and HM or PD. A priori outcomes pertained to efficacy, perioperative metrics, and safety. Internal validity of observational studies and randomized trials (RCTs) was judged using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, respectively. RESULTS: From 1379 unique literature citations, we included 28 studies comparing POEM and HM (n = 21) or PD (n = 8), with only 1 RCT addressing each. Aside from two 4-year observational studies, POEM follow-up averaged ≤ 2 years. While POEM had similar efficacy to HM, POEM treated dysphagia better than PD both in an RCT (treatment "success" RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.17; 126 patients) and in observational studies (Eckardt score MD - 0.43, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.16; 5 studies; I2 21%; 405 patients). POEM needed reintervention less than PD in an RCT (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.47; 126 patients) and HM in an observational study (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16, 0.68; 98 patients). Though 6-12 months patient-reported reflux was worse than PD in 3 observational studies (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.02-7.00; I2 0%; 164 patients), post-intervention reflux was inconsistently measured and not statistically different in measures ≥ 1 year. POEM had similar safety outcomes to both HM and PD, including treatment-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: POEM has similar outcomes to HM and greater efficacy than PD. Reflux remains a critical outcome with unknown long-term clinical significance due to insufficient data and inconsistent reporting.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

SAGES guidelines for the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used as primary treatment for esophageal achalasia, in place of the options such as Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD) OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) intend to support clinicians, patients and others in decisions about the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 4 recommendations for adults and children with achalasia. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendation for the use of POEM over PD was issued unless the concern of continued postoperative PPI use remains a key decision-making concern to the patient. Conditional recommendations included the option of using either POEM or HM with fundoplication to treat achalasia, and favored POEM over HM for achalasia subtype III.

Treatment options and outcomes for celiac artery compression syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain attributed to compression of the celiac artery at the level of the median arcuate ligament (MAL) of the diaphragm is an uncommon disorder. Although ultrasound investigation and arteriography can be suggestive of the diagnosis, no definitive criteria exist with only cases reports in the literature. This study presents the only known reported case series in which a combination of open and laparoscopic access techniques of MAL decompression are reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected electronic databases of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was performed for the period February 1999 until February 2009. Patients having undergone operation for celiac artery compression syndrome were identified and participated in a telephone interview. Questions were asked about the success of the operation, the recovery period, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Six patients were identified, 3 were male; mean age was 37.7 years. Four underwent open MAL division and celiac ganglion neurolysis, and 2 underwent a laparoscopic approach. Mean follow-up was 48.6 months. All patients experienced symptomatic improvement and were satisfied with their outcome. No patient had symptoms recurrence. CONCLUSION: In this limited experience, MAL division with celiac ganglion neurolysis appears to be an effective treatment for celiac artery compression syndrome in appropriately selected patients. Both the open and laparoscopic approaches are safe with durable midterm follow-up results.

Chicago Classification update (v4.0): Technical review of high-resolution manometry metrics for EGJ barrier function.

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function is of fundamental importance in the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Impaired EGJ barrier function leads to excessive distal esophageal acid exposure or, in severe cases, esophagitis. Hence, proposed high-resolution manometry (HRM) metrics assessing EGJ integrity are clinically important and were a focus of the Chicago Classification (CC) working group for inclusion in CC v4.0. However, the EGJ is a complex sphincter comprised of both crural diaphragm (CD) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) component, each of which is subject to independent physiological control mechanisms and pathophysiology. No single metric can capture all attributes of EGJ barrier function. The working group considered several potential metrics of EGJ integrity including LES-CD separation, the EGJ contractile integral (EGJ-CI), the respiratory inversion point (RIP), and intragastric pressure. Strong recommendations were made regarding LES-CD separation as indicative of hiatus hernia, although the numerical threshold for defining hiatal hernia was not agreed upon. There was no agreement on the significance of the RIP, only that it could localize either above the LES or between the LES and CD in cases of hiatus hernia. There was agreement on how to measure the EGJ-CI and that it should be referenced to gastric pressure in units of mmHg cm, but the numerical threshold indicative of a hypotensive EGJ varied widely among reports and was not agreed upon. Intragastric pressure was endorsed as an important metric worthy of further study but there was no agreement on a numerical threshold indicative of abdominal obesity.

The impact of socioeconomic factors on patient preparation for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic factors (SEF) influence bariatric surgery access and outcomes perhaps because of variations in patient knowledge and behaviors. This study examines the associations between income, formal education, race, health insurance, employment status, and patient self-educational and behavioral activities prior to bariatric surgery. METHODS: From March 2005 through January 2006, we surveyed 127 individuals who contacted our office seeking bariatric surgery. Study participants were asked to report their income, formal education, health insurance, employment status, height, weight, and standard demographic data. The type and number of self-educational resources utilized were elicited; a description of current eating and exercise behaviors was obtained; and an objective assessment (OA) of knowledge of the risks of both obesity and bariatric procedures was completed. RESULTS: The most valuable self-educational resource cited by respondents was the internet (41.2%) and was unaffected by SEF. Individuals who were employed, privately insured, white, and earning>or=$20,000/year reported using a greater number of self-educational resources than their peers, while subjects who were privately insured, had higher formal educational levels, and earned>or=$20,000/year demonstrated greater proficiency on the OA instrument. Engagement in healthy eating and exercise behaviors was unaffected by any SEF. On multivariate analysis, higher income was the sole significant factor directly related to the number of educational resources utilized and proficiency on OA. CONCLUSION: Obese patients from lower-income households may benefit from additional preoperative education. All individuals, regardless of socioeconomic factors, must be encouraged to implement healthy eating and exercise behaviors preoperatively.

Prevalence of thrombophilias in patients presenting for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The rise in bariatric surgery has driven an increased number of complications from venous thromboembolism (VTE). Evidence supports obesity as an independent risk factor for VTE, but the specific derangements underlying the hypercoagulability of obesity are not well defined. To better characterize VTE risk for the purpose of tailoring prophylactic strategies, we developed a protocol for thrombophilia screening in patients presenting for bariatric surgery at our institution. METHODS: Between April 2004 and April 2006, 180 bariatric surgery candidates underwent serologic screening for inherited thrombophilias (Factor V-Leiden mutation, low Protein C activity, low Protein S activity, Free Protein S deficiency) and acquired thrombophilias (D-Dimer elevation, Fibrinogen elevation, elevation of coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, elevation of Lupus anticoagulants and homocysteine level, and Antithrombin III deficiency). Prevalence rate of each thrombophilia in the subject group was compared to the actual prevalence rate of the general population. RESULTS: Most plasma markers of both inherited and acquired thrombophilias were identified in higher than expected proportions, including D-Dimer elevation in 31%, Fibrinogen elevation in 40%, Factor VIII elevation in 50%, Factor IX elevation in 64%, Factor XI elevation in 50%, and Lupus anticoagulant in 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is a well-described demographic risk factor for VTE. In bariatric surgery candidates routinely screened for serologic markers, both inherited and acquired thrombophilias occurred more frequently than in the general population, and may therefore prove to be useful for individualized VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis.

Risk-group targeted inferior vena cava filter placement in gastric bypass patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing body of evidence guiding appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in the general population, few data direct strategies to reduce deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in the morbidly obese. We have implemented a novel protocol for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) candidates at our institution, which augments clinical assessment with screening for thrombophilias, to guide retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter utilization. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent primary RYGB between 2001 and 2008 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was completed. During that time, clinical assessment of VTE risk was amplified by focused plasma screening for common thrombophilias (factors VIII, IX, and XI, d-dimer, fibrinogen). Preoperative prophylactic IVC filters were offered to high-risk patients. The database was reviewed for perioperative DVTs, PEs, and filter-related complications. RESULTS: Of 330 patients, in 162 attempts, 160 had prophylactic IVC filters placed with four complications overall (2.47%). No patient had symptoms of PE during the planned 6-week filter period, though one had a PE occur immediately after filter removal (0.63%); in contrast, five of 170 patients (2.94%) without prophylactic IVC filters presented with symptomatic PE (p = 0.216). In total, 147 (91.88%) prophylactic filters were removed. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-group targeted prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement prior to RYGB is safe with a trend towards reduced occurrence of PE.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with single-balloon enteroscopy is feasible in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y anastomosis.

The purpose of this study is to describe the feasibility of using single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who had a prior Roux-en-Y (RY) anastomosis. This case series describes four patients, one with RY gastric bypass, two with RY due to bile duct injury, and one with RY after liver transplantation, who underwent ERCP with SBE. Cholangiography was successful in three of the four patients. In the procedure that was not successful, the enteroenterostomy site could not be located. The successful procedures ranged from 65-91 min in duration. Medication doses were higher than with typical ERCPs. No procedural complications occurred. SBE for ERCP is a feasible option for endoscopic access to the biliary tree in patients with prior RY anastomoses. Limitations of this technique include the time requirement, delay in identification of the enteroenterostomy site, potential learning curve, and immature technology lacking accessories.

Clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an evidence-based review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of U.S. adults are obese. Current evidence suggests that surgical therapies offer the morbidly obese the best hope for substantial and sustainable weight loss, with a resultant reduction in morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive methods have altered the demand for bariatric procedures. However, no evidence-based clinical reviews yet exist to guide patients and surgeons in selecting the bariatric operation most applicable to a given situation. METHODS: This evidenced-based review is presented in conjunction with a clinical practice guideline developed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). References were reviewed by the authors and graded as to the level of evidence. Recommendations were developed and qualified by the level of supporting evidence available at the time of the associated SAGES guideline publication. The guideline also was reviewed and co-endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. RESULTS: Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, producing durable weight loss, improvement of comorbid conditions, and longer life. Patient selection algorithms should favor individual risk-benefit considerations over traditional anthropometric and demographic limits. Bariatric care should be delivered within credentialed multidisciplinary systems. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RGB), adjustable gastric banding (AGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD + DS) are validated procedures that may be performed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) also is a promising procedure. Comparative data find that procedures with more dramatic clinical benefits carry greater risks, and those offering greater safety and flexibility are associated with less reliable efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic RGB, AGB, BPD + DS, and primary LSG have been proved effective. Currently, the choice of operation should be driven by patient and surgeon preferences, as well as by considerations regarding the relative importance placed on discrete outcomes.